Can Texas Become a Republic Again
Texas Secede!
 | |||
| Texas Secession Facts Printer-Friendly PDF Version | |||
| | |||
| • Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? • Didn't the issue of the "Civil War" bear witness secession is not an choice for whatsoever State? • Didn't the U.Southward. Supreme Courtroom in Texas v. White testify secession is unconstitutional? • Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? • How would Texas—and Texans—do good from secession? • Are in that location whatsoever organized efforts to promote a Texas secession? • Why exactly are y'all selling bumper stickers? | |||
| | |||
| Q: | Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the correct of Texas to secede? [Back TO TOP] | ||
| A: | This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the electric current Texas Constitution [one] (adopted in 1876) or the terms of looting. [2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a gratis and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that information technology does not state "...bailiwick to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the Usa..." or "...subject to the collective will of ane or more of the other States...") Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the United states, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or whatever other "gratuitous and independent Country") from the United States. Joining the "Marriage" was e'er and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an as lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or authorities "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have e'er said). Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions as well state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they take at all times the inalienable right to alter their regime in such manner as they might think proper." Besides, each of the usa is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their simply powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever whatsoever form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, freedom, and property], it is the right of the people to modify or to abolish it, and to establish new government" and "when a long railroad train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a pattern to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their correct, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3] | ||
| | |||
| Q: | Didn't the event of the "Civil War" prove that secession is non an option for whatsoever State? [BACK TO TOP] | ||
| A: | No. It only proved that, when allowed to deed outside his lawfully limited authorisation, a U.South. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, freedom, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Amalgamated States (including Texas) withdrew from the Wedlock lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, afterwards enduring several years of excessive and caitiff federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. [iv] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln chosen it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the authorities" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted exterior the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. regime in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern command. [5] The South's rejoining the Union at the bespeak of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't bear witness secession is "not an option" or unlawful. Information technology only affirmed that tearing coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property. [6] It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their merely powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.due east., protecting life, liberty, and belongings], information technology is the right of the people to change or to abolish it, and to institute new regime" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them nether absolute despotism, it is their correct, information technology is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [7] | ||
| | |||
| Q: | Didn't the U.S. Supreme Courtroom decision in Texas five. White testify that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO Top] | ||
| A: | No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court'south decision in Texas v. White:
It is noteworthy that documented support for the alleged "perpetual and indissoluble relation" or any requirement of "the consent of us" for revocation (secession) weren't produced by the court at that time, nor have they since been produced. Information technology is too noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an human activity entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Matrimony. What'due south wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Courtroom was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Spousal relationship (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a land that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both tin't exist logically or legally truthful. To be clear: Within a ii twelvemonth menstruum, ii branches of the aforementioned government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of 2 mutually exclusive positions — ane, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the Usa Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a applied attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite weather condition for readmission. If the Supreme Courtroom was correct, and then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the offset identify. This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day. Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself... The Court, led past Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Matrimony figure during the war confronting the Southward) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning referenced the actual text of the Constitution at all(!) — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a matrimony may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of ane or more states. It'south no secret that more than than in one case there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and non just in the S), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "ramble" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional footing for either allowing or prohibiting secession. An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (simply unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, substantially nullifying their correct to self-determination and cocky-rule, every bit recognized in the Announcement of Independence, too as the current Texas Constitution (which today stands unchallenged past the federal government). Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or contrary secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained past the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states. | ||
| | |||
| Q: | Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? [BACK TO TOP] | ||
| A: | Probably non (yet). Texans more often than not aren't the rugged, independent, freedom-conscious folks they once were. Similar well-nigh Americans, they happily acquiesce to the U.S. regime's steady theft of their rights and belongings via unlawful statutes, programs, and activities. Unfamiliar with historical or legal details, being largely products of public (i.east., regime) "education," today's Texans easily adopt the "politically correct" myths that litter the mural of American popular opinion. Many don't even know what the word secede means, and believe that the Usa is a "democracy" (hint: information technology'south not). Just public opinion and ignorance won't cease us from suggesting that secession is still a good thought for people who value their rights and personal liberty more highly than the temporal affluence, comfort, and false security provided past the U.Southward. welfare/warfare state. Past raising public awareness of fifty-fifty the concept of secession, we hope they might constitute seeds that volition some day yield a new resolve amid Texans for liberty and cocky-regime. | ||
| | |||
| Q: | How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession? [BACK TO TOP] | ||
| A: | In many means. Over the by century-and-a-half the United States authorities has awarded itself e'er more power (but not the lawful authority) to meddle with the lives, freedom, and property of the People of Texas (as well as those of the other States). Sapping Texans' wealth into a myriad of bureaucratic, socialist schemes both in the U.South. and abroad, the bipartisan despots in Washington persist in expanding the federal debt and budget deficits every year. Texans would indeed gain much by reclaiming control of their State, their belongings, their liberty, and their very lives, by refusing to participate further in the fraud perpetrated by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats. By restoring Texas to an independent republic, Texans would truly reclaim a treasure for themselves and their progeny. | ||
| | |||
| Q: | Are any organizations promoting a Texas secession? [Back TO TOP] | ||
| A: | Yes. The following organized efforts be for informing and unifying Texans around the causes of independence and liberty:
| ||
| | |||
| Q: | Why exactly are you lot selling bumper stickers? [Back TO TOP] | ||
| A: | Texas has a rich history of contained grapheme. She was the get-go of merely two US States ever recognized internationally equally sovereign, independent republics (the other was Hawai'i), having won her independence from a heavy-handed despotic government (Mexico) that refused to honor its ain constitution (sound familiar?). We'd like to see Texans showing more public pride in Texas past displaying symbols of Texas' history and spirit of liberty. That's the motivation behind TexasSecede.com, too as our offering quality Texas Secede decals, as a means of encouraging the public display of support for an independent Texas. | ||
| | |||
Notes | |||
Source: https://texassecede.com/faq.php
0 Response to "Can Texas Become a Republic Again"
Post a Comment